Re: vacuumlo.

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Grant <grant@conprojan.com.au> writes:
> > Can you see a scenario where a programmer would forget to delete the
> > data from pg_largeobject and the database becoming very large filled
> > with orphaned large objects?
> 
> Sure.  My point wasn't that the functionality isn't needed, it's that
> I'm not sure vacuumlo does it well enough to be ready to promote to
> the status of mainstream code.  It needs more review and testing before
> we can move it out of /contrib.
> 

IIRC vacuumlo doesn't take the type lo(see contrib/lo) into
account. I'm suspicious if vacuumlo is reliable.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue